Lynch v. Delaware, L. & WR Co.

• Decision Date: 09 May 1932
• Docket Number: No. 321.,321.
• Parties: LYNCH v. DELAWARE, L. & W. R. CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

58 F.2d 177 (1932)

LYNCH v. DELAWARE, L. & W. R. CO.

No. 321.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 9, 1932.

Douglas Swift, of New York City, for appellant.

Alfred T. Rowe, of New York City (Sol. Gelb and Anthony Sansone, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.

Before L. HAND, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.

L. HAND, Circuit Judge.

Lynch, the deceased, was the engineer of a locomotive, used to pull a train upon the defendant's road, and concededly engaged in interstate commerce at the time he was killed. His administratrix sued for a violation of the Boiler Inspection Act (45 USCA § 22 et seq.), because of the defective condition of an "injector" or "inspirator" upon the locomotive, which forces the water from the tank into the boiler. The only issue necessary for our decision is whether there was enough evidence to submit to the jury. The boiler of the locomotive exploded because the water got too low, and the water fell because the only injector in operation at the time did not feed enough water into it. If this was proved to be due to a defect in the injector, the judgment was right, barring putative errors in the charge, which we pass; otherwise, it was not.

The plaintiff relied upon the testimony of three witnesses. Two were standing beside the track when the train passed on an upgrade, pulled by two locomotives of which Lynch's was the first. These witnesses saw him standing on the steps of the right side of his cab and apparently looking at his injector from which water and steam were escaping. The third witness, Harle, was the engineer of the locomotive behind; he saw Lynch stand for about three-quarters of a minute on the steps of his cab looking at his injector, and he, too, saw water and steam escaping. Lynch went back into his cab; the water and steam stopped, and the locomotive was eased off for about four miles. Within two miles after it had been again put at full power, the boiler exploded.

The injector is so set that the water will flow into the body of it from the tank by gravity. Steam both regulates the amount of water fed and lifts it to the boiler above. The feed is controlled by means of a pipe which runs from the boiler and mixes steam with the water; just how this regulates the amount fed to the boiler is not clear, and it is not important to know. The amount of steam let in through this pipe is governed by a valve which is manipulated in the cab. After the proper mixture is made it is lifted to the boiler by steam from a second and larger pipe, the amount of which is also controlled by a valve operated from the cab. It is, however, necessary that in the initial phase the injector should itself be open to the air; for this purpose it has an overflow valve also controlled from the cab. In operation the engineer first opens the overflow valve and water spills to the ground from the body of the injector. He then opens the regulating valve and makes the proper mixture for the feed he wishes; the mixture also spills. Then he opens the valve in the larger pipe and last of all closes the overflow valve. The injector thereafter pumps as much water to the boiler as the regulating steam pipe allows. During the period when the overflow and the regulating valves are open, the mixture comes out as water and "steam" or "vapor"; the witnesses used either word indifferently.

From the plaintiff's testimony in the setting described it appeared that Lynch had found trouble with the feed of his boiler and stepped down to see whether the injector was working as it should. To do this apparently he opened the overflow valve. Although Harle was somewhat vague as to whether he had not seen the escape of water and steam some time before Lynch stepped down, a jury might have found that he had not; it was consistent with his testimony that Lynch had...